This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create four new offences relating to nuclear terrorism in order to implement the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
Before we resume debate, and pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, National Defence; the hon. member for Winnipeg North, Citizenship and Immigration; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Foreign Investment.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain.
I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill S-9, Nuclear Terrorism Act. It is an important issue, and one that will allow me to go a little bit beyond the specific subject matter of the bill. The NDP will be supporting this bill at report stage and at third reading. We want to promote the implementation of its provisions in Canadian law.
On the other hand, before I begin, I would like to express some reservations about the fact that the bill originated in the Senate. I will repeat what my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain, said when she raised this issue a little earlier and put questions to our colleague from Winnipeg North. I still believe that the Senate has no business introducing this kind of bill, even less so on an issue as important as amending the Criminal Code regarding possible sentences for nuclear terrorism. This should be done by the elected officials. In fact, bills must originate in the House of Commons, period.
International law has an important place in Canada. No one is disputing that. However, there are questions about the adoption and implementation of international conventions in Canadian law. Some countries may have different methods for incorporating standards and rules of international law in domestic law. There are basically two different methods.
Countries with a monist legal system, in general, automatically incorporate the rules of international law once they have been ratified. They become part of the country’s legislation more or less directly, and some states will grant them superior force to any other domestic law. It is a simple and straightforward method.
However, Canada does not have a monist system; we have a dualist legal system. This means that international law is not immediately applicable in Canadian law. The Canadian Parliament must pass implementing legislation before the international provisions are applicable in domestic law. In a sense, this does justice to our political system—something that is not always very simple—for two reasons.
First, our federation is made up of provinces, which have their own areas of exclusive jurisdiction and separate legal systems. Second, it is logical that the legislative body should validate in legislation something that the executive has signed. If this were not the case, it would be as if Parliament were giving a blank check to the government of the day to sign anything and it would immediately come into effect in Canada. Not only would this be unacceptable, but when we look at some of the Conservative government’s foreign-policy directions, I would be afraid of what might emerge.
We could well be told that parliamentarians hold up the implementation of certain provisions by making it mandatory that there be implementation legislation, but frankly, I am extremely pleased that we can give attentive consideration to all the provisions of international law that come in to Canada.
With regard to the subject of debate today, the amendments to the Criminal Code would affect the implementation of the criminal law requirements contained, first, in the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and, second, in the 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.
In short, the bill creates four new offences under part II of the Criminal Code, with respect to the possession and use of nuclear or radioactive materials or devices, acts committed against a nuclear facility or its operation with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment, or attempts to compel a government or international organization to do or refrain from doing anything. I will not be reading all the amendments contained in this bill.
I see two main reasons we can support this bill. First, Canada is a producer of fissionable materials such as uranium. Until recently, Canada was the world's largest exporter of uranium until Kazakhstan reclaimed that title in 2009. Most of our mines are located in northern Saskatchewan. As of October 2012, Statistics Canada says that 15.2% of the electricity produced in Canada comes from nuclear plants. Naturally, these fissionable materials are moved around in Canada. And Canada has nuclear power plants.
Therefore, we in Canada are vulnerable to acts of nuclear terrorism. We cannot hide from that fact. We have been lucky until now that we have not had to face threats, but we will not always be so lucky, not with the new, stubborn, warlike foreign policy the government has adopted.
Second, it is important for Canada to express the provisions of these conventions in Canadian legislation. Then, later, we will be able to ratify them. That is important because it takes a certain number of ratifications in order for international conventions to come into force globally. It seems very complicated at first, but the purpose is simple: if more countries adhere to the treaties, it will be easier to implement them, since all countries will have the same rules to follow.
When we look at the international situation of countries with nuclear capabilities, we quickly see that these conventions are not a luxury. Unstable countries like Pakistan have nuclear weapons; in Russia's vast territory, control and supervision of fissionable materials can be extremely difficult.
Canada has been a model for other nations. The message we are sending, in ratifying these conventions, is clear: we are taking a step forward and inviting other countries to join us. Leading by example is the way to produce tangible change.
Our obligations with regard to nuclear safety are also serious. They began in 1968 when Canada signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Since then, Canada has been a constructive partner in controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons, working with the UN in Geneva, New York and Vienna.
The subject may seem abstract, but the scientific advances that began with mastering atomic fission in the 1940s have not come without great danger. Even today, North Korea is threatening the United States with a pre-emptive nuclear strike. It is clear: we have a long way to go.
The nuclear security summits in Washington in 2010 and Seoul, South Korea, in 2012 have helped control nuclear weapons. The more supervision and control of the fissionable materials circulating around the world, the less chance that these materials will be misused. That is the stated goal of the next summit, which will be held in the Netherlands in 2014.
However, there is one element that cannot be ignored. In the grand scheme of things, Canada must be a party to these two conventions. There is no question about it. However, I have concerns about this government’s foreign-policy directions that are becoming increasingly belligerent, inflexible and especially devoid of compassion. We used to be recognized worldwide for our moderate and rational stances on international issues. In addition to being seen as an unparalleled mediator, we were the very picture of an older brother, who listened closely, always sought compromise and campaigned tirelessly for peace.
Seven years after the Conservatives came to power, this is really no longer the case. There can be no better example of this than the loss three years ago of our seat on the United Nations Security Council. Furthermore, our development assistance policies are inconsistent, and shot through with a really tight-fisted idea of what helping your neighbour is all about. For this government, helping your neighbour really only means helping the big mining company make a bigger profit at the expense of the developing world.
Managing foreign affairs is a delicate exercise, but the Conservatives simply do not have the skill that it takes. Now they come onto the scene with their big boots and their preconceived ideas, giving lectures to all and sundry and preaching how we are better than everyone else. This is not how you make friends, especially when we regard our partners only from a financial point of view.
Why am I talking about this now? We can tell the Conservative government that we are supporting this tangible initiative on sentences for nuclear terrorism, but we should never lose sight of the global idea of our foreign-policy interests. By acting like coarse, combative villagers in our relations with the other countries of the world, we will end up pouring oil on the fire. There are better ways of doing things, and I believe the legacy of former Prime Minister Pearson must still serve as a guide.
We are not a major world power; we never have been. We are a middle power, with many natural resources, and an educated, resourceful and open-minded populace. I think Canadians are our greatest resource. In international relations, it is not just a question of trade and money. There is what Canada can bring to the table: ideas, responsiveness and compromises. There is still time for Canada to get back into multilateral forums with our international partners. In my view, it would be better for us to reach our goals with our allies, rather than against them.
Unbelievably, very few people agree on the literal definition of terrorism, because it involves unpredictable acts with many different causes. It is not just a question of religion or politics.
I am afraid that we are making the problem worse, with our one-dimensional foreign policy that is oriented solely toward money and that is totally insensitive to cultural, political and social demands. That hurts everyone and, much to the Conservatives’ dismay, it also hurts the economy.
Chris Alexander ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I thank our hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for her speech.
Does she not agree that one of the greatest things Canada has to brag about is the fact that it has a nuclear sector that produces a huge amount of energy? This is particularly the case in Ontario, but in other regions as well. This industry has not caused the loss of a single human life in Canada since its inception.
How does she explain that the NDP has traditionally opposed this renewable, healthy and safe energy sector in Ontario, at the federal level and across the country, even though it is a great source of pride for Canadians?
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question. I admire him a lot and admire his career path and background in diplomacy.
As someone from Quebec, where more than 95% of our electricity is produced by hydroelectricity, I have to say that this is not something I am very familiar with. However, it is still important to always ensure that nuclear energy is produced safely, and strict environmental protections must always be a priority.
Since hydroelectricity in Quebec is a very renewable and clean resource, I have nothing more to say about this subject, but I thank him for his question.
Tarik Brahmi NDP Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest that in her speech, my colleague mentioned the next Nuclear Security Summit, to be held in the Netherlands in 2014. This gives me the opportunity to bring up Canada's leadership on the world stage.
I would like the member to talk about what role she thinks Canada should play at the summit. What position should Canada take so that it can try to improve its reputation and regain a little of what it has lost in terms of international leadership?
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for his question. He raises a very important point. In recent years, we have unfortunately seen the extent to which Canada's international reputation has been tarnished. For a very long time, it had a sterling reputation as a peacekeeper that helped countries resolve their differences. That is no longer the case. This issue should become a priority for Canada, and we should strive to regain our international stature. We must reclaim the much more peaceful and conciliatory vision that we held for so long in order to solve foreign conflicts and ensure that they do not degenerate.
In my opinion, this should be a priority for the government. Obviously, when we win power in 2015, this will continue to be an important issue for our party.
Anne-Marie Day NDP Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, on February 28, the Minister of Justice appeared before the Senate committee studying the Anti-terrorism Act. He said:
...these offences do not deal with lawful medical procedures involving radiation, the lawful exchange of material or devices, or other existing lawful activity in the nuclear industry.
Can the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent tell us if the issue of the safety of nuclear waste from medical equipment has been dealt with in the terrorism file?
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for her question. A number of amendments were presented at the Senate stage, which makes us wonder why we only saw these additions at the Senate stage. We could also ask ourselves why this bill was introduced in the Senate. This type of important legislation should always be introduced in the elected House, that is the House of Commons.
I find it frustrating that, in 2013, bills are still introduced by people who are appointed, not elected, and who are not accountable to anyone.
Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in support of Bill S-9,, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the nuclear terrorism act. As I just said at the outset, I will be supporting the bill.
Before I get into the substance of the bill, I want to take a moment to talk about the corsage that I and indeed all women MPs in the House are wearing today. It was a gift from Equal Voice, an all-party not-for-profit organization that is dedicated to electing more women to all levels of political office in Canada.
On the day before International Women's Day, I am proud to accept and wear the carnation it has so generously given us to celebrate our election to Parliament. However, I also accept it as a call to action, and I would be remiss if I did not note that women's participation in elected politics is still woefully inadequate. Women are more than 50% of Canada's population but currently constitute only 25% of the members in the House, and that is simply not good enough.
In the NDP caucus, that number is significantly better. In fact, at 40% it is the best of any of the recognized parties in the House, but we did not get here by accident. Our party adopted action plans to break down barriers for women in politics, and our leaders have had the political will and commitment to make that happen. My point here is that there is a lot more that the Canadian government needs to do to remove the barriers, so women can realize economic, political and social equality in our country.
I would be less than honest if I did not express some disappointment that on this eve of International Women's Day, we are debating Bill S-9, which could have been debated long ago, instead of focusing on issues like violence against women, the lack of affordable housing, poverty or any of the other myriad issues that are still so pervasive in our country. We all need to be vigilant and tenacious in our fight for further sustainable change when it comes to women's equality.
The treaties we are talking about today could all have been ratified a long time ago. Nonetheless, here we are dealing with the legislation that the government has deemed more important to debate than women's equality today, and that is Bill S-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code, nuclear terrorism. As many of my colleagues have already pointed out, the bill fulfills Canada's treaty obligations under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. This includes extending international measures beyond protecting against proliferation of nuclear materials to now include protection of nuclear facilities, and it reinforces Canada's obligation under UN Security Council resolution 1540 from 2004, to take and enforce effective measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear materials as well as chemical and biological weapons.
In a case where the implementation of a treaty requires amendments to Canadian legislation, the treaty is ratified only when such amendments or new legislation have been passed. To date, Canada has not ratified either the ICSANT or the CPPNM amendment. That is because Canada does not yet have legislation in place to criminalize the offences outlined in the ICSANT or some of the offences outlined in the CPPNM amendment. The amendments Bill S-9 introduces into the code represent Canada's efforts to align its domestic legislation with what is required by both of those conventions.
If these amendments became law, Canada would be in a position to ratify both the ICSANT and the CPPNM amendment. I would hope we would indeed move expeditiously to do just that as soon as this law is passed. Having laid out what is at stake in the bill, let us now look at it in a little more detail.
The bill introduces four new indictable offences into part II of the Criminal Code. First, it makes it illegal to possess, use or dispose of nuclear or radioactive material, or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operations with the intent to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment.
Second, it makes it illegal to use or alter nuclear or radioactive material, or a nuclear or radioactive device, or commit an act against a nuclear facility or its operation with the intent to compel a person, government or international organization to do or refrain from doing anything.
Third, it makes it illegal to commit an indictable offence under federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear or radioactive material, a nuclear or radioactive device, or access or control of a nuclear facility.
Fourth, it makes it illegal to threaten to commit any of the other three offences.
Frankly, I think most Canadians would have thought that such provisions already exist in the Criminal Code and will have been surprised to learn that they were not. To most of them it would seem like a no-brainer. Like them, my NDP colleagues and I believe we must address the issue of nuclear security and comply with international obligations to better co-operate with other countries on counterterrorism strategies.
We are committed to multi-lateral diplomacy and international co-operation, especially in areas of great common concern, such as nuclear terrorism. Canada, along with our international partners, must do what we can to protect Canadians from all forms of terrorism and protect global security.
I have read through some of the testimony from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the committee that studied this legislation, and I would like to draw the attention of the House to the spine-chilling testimony of Professor Matthew Bunn. He is the associate professor of public policy at Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. Let me share what Professor Bunn said to us:
The danger of nuclear terrorism remains very real. Government studies in the United States and in other countries have concluded that if terrorists manage to get enough highly enriched uranium or plutonium, they might very well be able to make a crude nuclear bomb capable of incinerating the heart of a major city. In the case of highly enriched uranium, making such a bomb is basically a matter of slamming two pieces together at high speed. The amounts required are small, and smuggling them is frighteningly easy. Should terrorists succeed in detonating a nuclear bomb in a major city, the political, economic, and social effects would reverberate throughout the world. Kofi Annan, when he was secretary-general of the United Nations, warned that the economic effects would drive millions of people into poverty and create a second death toll in the developing world. Fears that terrorists might have another bomb that they might set off somewhere else would be acute. The world would be transformed, and not for the better. Hence, insecure nuclear material anywhere is really a threat to everyone, everywhere. This is not just an American judgment. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has warned that nuclear terrorism is one of the most serious threats of our time. Mohamed ElBaradei, while he was head of the IAEA, called it the greatest threat to the world.
As scary as that sounds, the fact is that between 1993 and 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency identified close to 2,000 incidents related to the use, transportation and unauthorized possession of nuclear and radioactive material, which is why this legislation is so important. Canada must take action to support nuclear safety throughout the world, and the bill is a step in the right direction. We must respect our international obligations.
I am glad that the Conservatives have finally decided to implement the convention. I do wonder why it took them so long to introduce the bill and why they would choose to do it through the Senate. It is perhaps because the Conservatives are also no longer quite sure what the Senate's purpose is. I was taught that the Senate was a chamber of sober second thought. The Conservatives are again turning things upside down. They are now turning the House of Commons into a chamber of sober second thought. It really is Disney on the Rideau here. The Conservatives keep managing to create new illusions to keep Canadians off balance and unable to hold their government to account. I could go on at greater length about that theme, but I see that my time is just about up.
Let me conclude with one quick thought, even if I do not have the time to develop it more fully here. I would be remiss if I did not encourage the Conservatives to stop cherry-picking and get on with implementing all of the conventions that Canada has ratified. Nuclear terrorism and the protection of nuclear material are important, but surely to God so are conventions like the Convention on the Rights of the Child or the convention on indigenous rights. Let us bring the same single-mindedness to these conventions that the government brought to Bill S-9 and let us do it now.
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, based on the member's comments, I would like to know if her party would support unanimous consent to pass the bill now and we would move on to the next item?
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
Does the hon. member for Burlington have the unanimous consent of the House to consider the motion?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
Mr. Speaker, given that the member listened so intently to my speech, I find his request for unanimous consent a bit troubling. One of the things I said quite clearly in my speech was that I thought it was outrageous that this legislation came from the Senate without being duly debated in the House of Commons first. That, of course, is what we are here for. We are supposed to be examining government legislation. We are supposed to do our due diligence. We are here representing constituents in our ridings on something as important as nuclear terrorism. Why would we not want to discuss the bill in some detail? We are not holding it up. We are not being dilatory. There are some very serious concerns, including the fact that the bill is much broader than it needs to be to implement the two treaties we are debating here today.
When I get my opportunity, I will certainly be putting that question to the government. I appreciate that this is not my turn to ask questions, so I look forward to that opportunity in the very near future.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton Mountain very ably outlined the reasons why this needs to be debated in the House. It is irresponsible not to take a good hard look at a bill and see whether amendments are required.
In talking about unanimous consent to move this bill along, it is interesting that the Conservatives have been in power since 2006 and have had ample opportunity to bring this bill forward for debate. If we want to talk about delays, let us talk about what they have been up to.
When the member started her speech, she talked about the fact that this week we are celebrating International Women's Day and mentioned specifically that women certainly have a role to play in peace in the world. UN Resolution 1325, which we translate into “no women, no peace”, talks very clearly about how women have to be involved in any kind of peace process. I am a very proud member of PNND.
I wonder if the member could speak specifically to what else she would have liked to have seen done in this particular instance when dealing with Bill S-9.
Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I entirely understood the question or the focus of the question. If it is asking about women's—